Friday, September 19, 2014

Muslims and Self-Sacrifice

Last March I discussed the Muslim state of
mind in “The Pathological Roots of Islam.” This time around I explore the reason that
drives ordinary Muslims to want to immigrate to Western nations, when it means
having to deal with infidels “lower than pigs and apes.”

A MUSLIM leader chose the hallowed steps of Lakemba’s War Memorial to
preach outrage and condemnation over the anti-terror raids across Sydney.

In front of 300 angry protesters,
controversial Hizt ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar warned of a growing anger
within the Islamic ­community and said it was time to stop the victimization.
“We are tired of being made scapegoats. The government is the terrorist,” he
declared to the gathering, many waving anti-government placards.

One must ask
oneself this question: If Muslims regard non-Muslims as filthy
kaffirs and the lowest
of all creatures they'd really rather not be anywhere near, why do they
wish to surround themselves with them by immigrating to – or rather, by invading
and colonizing, too often by a nation’s invitation – acountry full of them, where they must deal
with them daily and not in a beheading way (at first), either? Is it the higher
standard of living? Is it the welfare? Is it for jobs? A “better life”? I think those are just flash card reasons.

What exactly is a kaffir? Islam
Stack Exchange, a website for enquiring Muslims, provides an authoritative
answer:

My understanding of the term kafir
is that it refers to a person who literally rejects God's authority.

So while even the most blatant polytheist
would still be mushrik, he would not (necessarily) be kafir.

It's not until the message has been relayed
to him and he refuses to accept it that he would be labelled kafir.

However, it seems the common use of the
word kafir, at least nowadays, is to refer to anybody who is non-Muslim,
regardless of whether or not they're familiar with God's message and His
commands.

What is the actual meaning of this term in
the primary sources? As in, when the Qur'an and the hadiths refer to the kuffar
(or ayuhal kafireen) which interpretation is more correct?

I think the real
reason why Muslims want to rub shoulders with us is that Islam inculcates a
psychosis in Muslims that allows them to endure the "detested ones"
while putting down roots for "the cause," which is basically to
subjugate and/or kill kaffirs. They
don't even need to think about it, not clearly, it's just a fuzzy state of mind
that will in many eventually blossom into action. Their remaining silent about the atrocities
their brethren are committing across town or across an ocean, or denying that
ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other Islamic gangs have
nothing to do with Islam, nonetheless still makes them culpable.

Of course, this is just a natural query looking for a logical causal-connection
in Muslim behavior, but in a tentative answer one will not find any logic, just
as one won't find clean, rational logic in Sharia law or in the Koran. I don't
think the Muslim Brotherhood master-plan types even care how their
lower-ranking Muslims think or behave, as long as tothey go to the West to plant
seeds and play victim or minority or loud-mouthed advocate -- in short, to act
as a spreading, slow-acting poison in Western culture, which has weakened
itself with multiculturalism and political correctness and moral relativism.
These maladies didn't exist in, say, 19th Britain, so such a "master
plan" wouldn't have worked there or even in France.

The Muslim
Brotherhood’s “master-plan,” or “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group,” written May 22nd, 1991, per the Gates
of Vienna and numerous other blog sites, cites:

One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land
Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram,
and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
United States:

The process of
settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan
[Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within
and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work
wherever he is…

But in the 20th and
21st centuries, such a "master plan" is feasible, and a goodly measure
of that feasibility is enabled by the Western refusal to acknowledge the
nature, methods and ends of Islam. That “General Strategy” is well-advanced in
Europe, not so much in America in spite of our political leadership’s evasion
of the issue. And Islam has millions of faith-lobotomized followers to perform
those tasks and the footwork. All they need do is "be there" in
Dearborn, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, London, Sydney, Amsterdam, and even
in tiny Reykjavik, Iceland, to “be fruitful and multiply,” without even joining
a noisy demonstration or carrying signs saying "Behead those who defame
Islam." If Islam is spreading, it is largely the West’s fault; it
refuses to recognize Islam as the pestilence it is.

Islam is evil, but
evil, as a rule, derives any strength or potency it might claim from a refusal
of its victims to recognize that it is anti-life, anti-self, and, in this
instance, fundamentally anti-man. Islam requires that men consciously repudiate
and discard one’s self-interest. Only self-sacrifice is permitted. It requires
that one submit without reservation or question to the arbitrary, capricious,
irrational whims of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient ghost.

Muslim mothers have
boasted of being “proud” that their sons successfully exploded suicide vests
and killed themselves and others. This is the kind of sacrifice which Western
mothers, while they adhere to the Judeo-Christian notion that sacrifices are
necessary to preserve a value, are not familiar with. One of the most repulsive
and psychotic instances of sacrificing values among Muslims is the “honor
killing” of wayward mothers and daughters by their own parents and other
relatives.

So, I think that
for the average Muslim, there's an intractable altruist psychosis in his mind
that draws him to Western cultures and nations, not for jobs or a higher,
healthier standard of living, but because, down deep, he knows there is a good
there and it must be despoiled or destroyed because Allah commands it. So, he
will endure being engulfed in a sea of filthy kaffirs. The demands of selflessness and unquestioning submission
inherent in Islam make it easy for a Muslim to “suffer” so. A Muslim can be content to safely participate
in the “insurgency” against the West by being a passive cipher and welfare king
(or queen), or engage in mere criminal acts against random Westerners in the
Westerners’ own countries (rapes, beheadings, no-go vigilantes, attacking Jews,
etc.).

This, in Western
parlance, is self-sacrifice, not for a “noble end,” or even to preserve values
– but instead to destroy values, by being a negative presence among the good. However,
before they commit the final, ultimate self-sacrifice, Muslims first want to
sacrifice you. It is a sought-after
self-sacrifice which easily metastases into pure nihilism.

I'm enjoying your anti-Islam, anti-immigration thoughts. However, with these you are outside the confines of Objectivism and probably Right-Liberalism as it is currently defined. Right Liberalism, of which Objectivism is a purified version, sees only individuals and eschews all groupings as "collectivist". For the Objectivist there is no "Muslim savagery", there is only the savage actions of individuals. Therefore, there can be no isolating Islam as such as the problem and banning it or working for the out-migration of Muslims from Western nations (with deportations if necessary). All that would be "collectivist" or "determinist" or "racist" or "nativist", etc.

My point is that I don't see how you can remain an Objectivist going down the path your going. You have to come out as some type of Paleo-Conservative or Paleo-Libertarian at the least. That's the path I went down. As much as I like Rand, I can't stomach the Objectivist movement. Its another example of suicidal universalism. Any movement which can not see the evil of Islam as such, and not "Islamists", and can not advocate the banning of that religion and its complete removal from the West in the name of "principle" is a movement based on suicidal principles. And I haven't raised the subject of another problem with all versions of Right Liberalism, namely the belief in neurological uniformity; ie that you can take Europeans, Blacks, Mestizos, Arabs, Somalis, Asians, etc and put them all in the same polity and expect them all to swear allegiance to the ideals of dead white 18th century high IQ Europeans.

Anyway, I salute your honestly dealing with the Islam issue and your opposition to the Randroids (basically all of them) and their open borders insanity but I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually end up ditching Objectivism when you see that the movement is just another form of modern Gnosticism and blind ideology; ie that its radical individualism could never defend a nation against a war-mongering cult like Islam.

MadMax: Thank you for your thoughts here. I've had discussions about how my positions with others on many issues -- particularly Islam, the Mexican invasion, and open borders -- puts me beyond the pale of Objectivism. My position, however, is that concerning especially Islam, the Mexican invasion, and open immigration (a "Come one, come all" attitude) is that any Objectivist who unreservedly endorses such a position is not an Objectivist.

My original "Turtles" piece generated a lot of back-and-forth on Capitalism Magazine. My second "Turtles" piece was written in answer to Bernstein's there. And my latest piece on Muslim self-sacrifice, has to date, generated just one comment there. But none of Objectivism's "big guns" -- Brook et al. -- have deigned to answer the last one, either, even though it's a fresh take on self-sacrifice and altruism, one no one (to my knowledge) has ever tackled before -- not Daniel Greenfield, not Robert Spencer, not Daniel Pipes nor any of the other authorities on Islam.

As for what label I'd fall under, I don't know. But I know I certainly don't want to be called Conservative or Libertarian, with or without the Paleo prefix.

All in all, I'm not the one who's abandoned Objectivism. I've been shunned and snubbed by ARI for years, and really don't care about it anymore.

Until Kira Peikoff published her own two novels (that's Peikoff's daughter), I was the only living "Objectivist" novelist (and I never called myself that, shuddered at the thought!) but was never invited to speak at any of ARI's conferences on literature or novel writing, even though I have a lot of fans among the Objectivist rank-and-file. Instead, they have Bernstein, who wrote one lousy, crack-brained novel (The Heart of a Pagan), and Tore Boekmann, who's written one short story that I know of, speak on the subjects. It sits in my craw, when I think of it, which is less and less anymore. In fact, this is the first I've thought of it in years.

MadMax: Thank you for your thoughts here. I've had discussions with others (mainly with British Objectivists) about how my positions on many issues -- particularly Islam, the Mexican invasion, and open borders -- puts me beyond the pale of “official” Objectivism. My position, however, is that concerning especially Islam, the Mexican invasion, and open immigration (a "Come one, come all" attitude) is that any Objectivist who unreservedly endorses such a position is not an Objectivist.

My original "Turtles" piece generated a lot of back-and-forth on Capitalism Magazine. My second "Turtles" piece was written in answer to Bernstein's there. And my latest piece on Muslim self-sacrifice, has to date, generated just one comment there. But none of Objectivism's "big guns" -- Brook et al. -- have deigned to answer the last one, either, even though it's a fresh take on self-sacrifice and altruism, one no one (to my knowledge) has ever tackled before -- not Daniel Greenfield, not Robert Spencer, not Daniel Pipes nor any of the other authorities on Islam.

As for what label I'd fall under, I don't know. But I know I certainly don't want to be called Conservative or Libertarian, with or without the Paleo prefix.

All in all, I'm not the one who's abandoned Objectivism. I've been shunned and snubbed by ARI for years, and really don't care about it anymore. But the arm’s length treatment had me stumped for the longest time, and it explains a lot about ARI’s behavior vis-à-vis uppity and very productive outsiders like myself.

Until Kira Peikoff published her own two novels (that's Peikoff's daughter), I was the only living "Objectivist" novelist (and I never called myself that, shuddered at the thought!) but was never invited to speak at any of ARI's conferences on literature or novel writing, even though I have a lot of fans among the Objectivist rank-and-file. Instead, they have Bernstein, who wrote one lousy, crack-brained novel (The Heart of a Pagan), and Tore Boekmann, who's written one short story that I know of (he claims to have written a dozen or so for European publications, but, where are the English translations, the self-published anthology of them?), speak on the subjects. It sits in my craw, when I think of it, which is less and less anymore. In fact, this is the first I've thought of it in years.

I've said something similar that any system or ideology whose policies function as a suicide pact is self-nullifying. It proves itself wrong through the simple fact that if its ideas were implemented it could not survive. Libertarians who argue for open borders are like Jews arguing for more Islamic immigration.

madmax: "For the Objectivist there is no "Muslim savagery", there is only the savage actions of individuals."

The Muslim religion is founded on the destruction of the infidel, meaning all who will not submit to Islam. This inspires the "savage actions of individuals." Rand said that religion is a primitive form of philosophy. Islam is a primitive religion. There is no contradiction between Ed Cline's position and Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff also sees the threat to Western Civilization clearly. Those who are proposing open borders are simply dropping context. They are not considering Islam as the enemy it truly is. It makes no sense to get hung up on trying to label this position with fancy titles as it is patently wrong to drop context, so the position doesn't even deserve a label.

The US Senate is meeting to place limits on the first amendment -- and if they succeed, that will be the end of open discussion in forums like these. After that, we will take these discussions underground.

It is wise to know that Objectivists may disagree, but they won't behead you, unlike Islamic jihadists. The enemies of the US are Saudi Arabia and Iran. The US should just bomb the oil wells in those counties and that would end Islamic jihad in short order.

Objectivists (all of us) are fighting a battle. In the case of ARI, there are lots of people claiming to be Objectivists who patently disagree with Rand on many, many important points. They also claim to speak for Rand, and that is why ARI is so shy of sharing the podium with those they did not train personally.

Is it a wrong attitude? Based on the number of labels madmax came up with in trying to classify Objectivists, I would say no. The question is not Paleo, Right Liberal, etc., the question is what is right.

Islam is based on the Five Pillars. No Muslim may be a Muslim without affirming the Five Pillars, which include the complete Islamization of the entire world because the world exists for the purpose of worshipping Allah (and no other purpose). So the only difference between so-called moderate Muslims and jihad is that the jihadis don't mind getting their hands bloodied, while the "moderates" hope that the "ideals" of Islam can come to fruition with their financial support, but without overt killing on their part.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that there is no significant difference between the Koran (which contains lots of bloodshed) and the Old Testament (which also contains lots of bloodshed). However, the Islamic profession of faith (the Five Pillars), is not an ancillary part of Islam. It is central. No Muslim can deny the Five Pillars and be considered anything but apostate.

Ilene: Thanks for your comments here. You demonstrate a grasp of the Muslim and open borders issue I don't much observe elsewhere. Your remarks on the Five Pillars are especially relevant. I've been asked to review a new book coming out in October on Mohammad and Islam in October and will review it here. I've already reviewed Robert Spencer's "Did Muhammad Exist" here on RoR and CapMag, and also a few other books on the subject by others.